the interest of self-preservation, to watch closely the relations of these States with Europe and also the relations between these very States, and eventually to intervene in conflicts. Since every State must decide for itself whether and where vital interests of its own are at stake and whether the balance of power is endangered to its disadvantage, and since, as explained above (§ 138), intervention is therefore de facto a matter of policy, there is no legal impediment to the United States carrying out a policy in conformity with the Monroe doctrine. This policy hampers indeed the South American States, but with their growing strength it will gradually disappear. For, whenever some of these States become Great Powers themselves, they will no longer submit to the political hegemony of the United States, and the Monroe doctrine will have played its part. VII Grotius, II. c. 2, § 13-Vattel, II. §§ 21-26-Hall, § 13-Taylor, § 160 presuppo Inter § 141. Many adherents of the doctrine of funda- Intermental rights include therein also a right of inter- course a course of every State with all others. This right of sition of intercourse is said to contain a right of diplomatic, national commercial, postal, telegraphic intercourse, of intercourse by railway, a right of foreigners to travel and reside on the territory of every State, Perso nality. and the like. But if the real facts of international life are taken into consideration, it becomes at once apparent that such a fundamental right of intercourse does not exist. All the consequences which are said to follow out of the right of intercourse are not at all consequences of a right, but nothing else than consequences of the fact that intercourse between the States is a condition without which a Law of Nations would not and could not exist. The civilised States make a community of States because they are knit together through their common interests and the manifold intercourse which serves these interests. Through the intercourse with one another and with the growth of their common interests the Law of Nations has grown up among the civilised States. Where there is no intercourse there cannot be a community and a law for such community. A State cannot be a member of the Family of Nations and an International Person, if it has no intercourse whatever with at least one or more other States. Varied intercourse with other States is a necessity for every civilised State. The mere fact that a State is a member of the Family of Nations shows that it has various intercourse with other States, for otherwise it would never have become a member of that family. Intercourse is therefore one of the characteristics of the position of the States within the Family of Nations, and it may be maintained that intercourse is a presupposition of the international Personality of every State. But no special right or rights of intercourse exist according to the Law of Nations between the States. It is because such special rights of intercourse do not exist that the States conclude special treaties regarding matters of post, telegraphs, telephones, railways, and commerce. Most States keep up protective duties to exclude foreign trade from or to hamper it within their own borders in the interest of their home commerce, industry, and agriculture. And although regularly they allow foreigners to travel and to reside on their territory, they can expel every foreign subject according to discretion. quences of course as a Presup Inter nality. § 142. Intercourse being a presupposition of Inter- Consenational Personality, the Law of Nations favours inter- Intercourse in every way. The whole institution of legation serves the interest of intercourse between the States, position of as does the consular institution. The right of lega- national tion, which every full-Sovereign State undoubtedly Perso holds, is held in the interest of intercourse, as is certainly the right of protection over citizens abroad2 which every State possesses. The freedom of the Open Sea, which has been universally recognised since the end of the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the right of every State to the passage of its merchantmen through the maritime belt of all other States, and, further, freedom of navigation for the merchantmen of all nations on so-called international rivers, are further examples of provisions of the Law of Nations in the interest of international intercourse. The question is frequently discussed and answered in the affirmative whether a State has the right to require such States as are outside the Family of Nations to open their ports and allow commercial intercourse. Since the Law of Nations is a law between those States only which are members of the Family of Nations, it has certainly nothing to do 1 See below, § 360. See below, $319. The right of protection over citizens abroad is frequently said to be a special right of self-preservation, but it is VOL. 1. really a right in the interest of See below, § 259. Jurisdiction im tion of the States within the Nations. with this question, which is therefore one of mere commercial policy and of morality. VIII JURISDICTION Hall, §§ 62, 75-80-Westlake, I. pp. 236-271-Lawrence, §§ 117-133— Phillimore, I. §§ 317-356-Twiss, I. §§ 157-171-Halleck, I. pp. 186245-Taylor, §§ 169-171-Wheaton, §§ 77-151-Bluntschli, §§ 388393-Heffter, $$ 34-39-Bonfils, Nos. 263-266-Rivier, I. § 28Fiore, I. Nos. 475-588. § 143. Jurisdiction is a matter of importance as portant for regards the position of the States within the Family the posi- of Nations for several reasons. States possessing independence and territorial as well as personal Family of supremacy can naturally extend or restrict their jurisdiction as far as they like. However, as members of the Family of Nations and International Persons, the States must exercise self-restraint in the exercise of this natural power in the interest of one another. Since intercourse of all kinds takes place between the States and their subjects, the matter ought to be thoroughly regulated by the Law of Nations. But such regulation has as yet only partially grown up. The consequence of both the regulation and non-regulation of jurisdiction is that concurrent jurisdiction of several States can often at the same time be exercised over the same persons and matters. And it can also happen that matters fall under no jurisdiction because the several States which could extend their jurisdiction over these matters refuse to do so, leaving them to each other's jurisdiction. Restrictions upon § 144. As all persons and things within the terriTerritorial tory of a State fall under its territorial supremacy, Jurisdic- every State has jurisdiction over them. The Law of tion. Nations, however, gives a right to every State to claim so-called exterritoriality and therefore exemption from local jurisdiction chiefly for its head,1 its diplomatic envoys, its men-of-war,3 and its armed forces abroad. And partly by custom and partly by treaty obligations, Eastern non-Christian States, Japan now excepted, are restricted 5 in their territorial jurisdiction with regard to foreign resident subjects of Christian Powers. tion over § 145. The Law of Nations does not prevent a Jurisdic State from exercising jurisdiction over its subjects Citizens travelling or residing abroad, since they remain abroad. under its personal supremacy. As every State can also exercise jurisdiction over foreigners within its boundaries, such foreigners are often under two concurrent jurisdictions. And, since a State is not obliged to exercise jurisdiction for all matters over foreigners on its territory, and since the home State is not obliged to exercise jurisdiction over its subjects abroad, it may happen that foreigners are actually for some matters under no State's jurisdiction. § 146. As the Open Sea is not under the sway of any State, no State can exercise its jurisdiction there. But it is a rule of the Law of Nations that the vessels and the things and persons thereon remain during the time they are on the Open Sea under the jurisdiction of the State under whose flag they sail." It is another rule of the Law of Nations, that piracy 8 on the Open Sea can be punished by any State, whether the pirate sails under the flag of a State at all or not. Again, in the interest of the safety of the Open Sea, 'Details below, §§ 348-353, and 356. Details below, $$ 385-405. * Details below, §§ 450-451. Details below, § 445 s Details below, §§ 318 and 440. ↑ See below, § 260. Jurisdic- tion on the |